On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 10:15 AM Thorsten Schöning <tschoen...@am-soft.de> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I have some repo generating revisions automatically based on some > events of some software, to track some changes to some status and > config files automatically. This repos currently contains ~ 145'000 > revisions and because the overhead of individual files is pretty high, > I'm packing them once a week. > > That repo currently has a size of ~750 MiB on disk and I have a backup > on my Windows using NTFS. Just out of interest I enabled file system > compression for that repo and found that the storage needs could be > reduced to ~350 MiB of data. > > That was pretty surprising for me, because some months ago I enabled > zlib compression level 9 and fully dumped/loaded that repo to benefit > of the compression. NTFS compression is known to prefer performance in > favour of overall savinbgs, so I would have expected to not get much > difference. > > Looking at some of the pack files, there's a lot of ASCII and blocks > of binary 0s in them. Maybe NTFS compression is benefitting of those? > In general, is the data in the pack files for revs compressed or not? > > From my understanding the data of the individual revs is reused and if > that is compressed, the pack files are as well. Looking at fsfs.conf, > compression for packed revprops need to be enabled additionally, but > that really only applies to the revprops, correct? Those don't count > much in my scenario. > > Is there any way to further optimize/compress the pack files using SVN? > > My repos are hosted under Linux using ext4, if it's normal what I see > and can't be optimized further using SVN itself, I 'm considering > switching to BTRFs with it's file system compression. Going to see the > same benefits like for NTFS pretty likely. > > Thanks for your advices! > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > Thorsten Schöning Interesting. I'll try running some tests on my systems. It will probably take me a week or so to get to it since I have a big backlog of things at the moment. A few questions: Which SVN server version? Which compression type? Have you tried a dump and load lately to see if the resulting repository is smaller?
